3. espanol vs formoso

8/15/2019 3. Espanol vs Formoso

1/21

FIRST DIVISION

DGE DOLORES L.

SPAOL,*Presiding Judge,

egional Trial Court,

ranch 90,

asmarias,Cavite,

etitioner,

- versus -

TTY. BENJAMIN S.ORMOSO and SPOUSES

G.R. No. 150949

Present:

PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,

CORONA,

AZCUNA, and

GARCIA, JJ .

Promulgated:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn1


2/21

ENITO SEE and MARLY

EE,Respondents.June 21, 2007

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

E C I S I O N

ANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J .:

efore us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing th

ecision[1] dated September 12, 2001 and Resolutio

ated November 15, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA

R. SP No.65652.

he facts are:

n April 15, 1994, Sharcons Builders Philippines, In

harcons) bought from Evanswinda Morales a piece

nd consisting of 33,130 square meters in Paliparaasmarias, Cavite. The property is covered by Transf

ertificate of Title (TCT) No. T-278479 issued in her nam

y the Register of Deeds of Trece Martires City.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn2


3/21

hus, TCT No. T-278479 in Evanswindas name w

ncelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-511462 was issu

the name of Sharcons. However, when the latte

orkers tried to fence and take possession of the lot, the

ere prevented by the caretaker of spouses Joseph an

nriqueta Mapua. The caretaker claimed that spousapua are the owners of the land.Sharcons verified th

atus of the title and found that TCT No. T-107163 wdeed registered in the names of spouses Mapua as ear

July 13, 1979.

n January 25, 2000, Sharcons filed with the Regional Tri

ourt (RTC), Branch 90, Dasmarias, Cavite a complaint fo

uieting of title, docketed as Civil Case No. 2030.Impleaded as defendants were spouses Mapu

vanswinda Morales, and the Register of Deeds of Trec

artires City.

their answer, spouses Mapua alleged, among others, th

the documents relied upon by Sharcons are spurio

nd falsified.

the course of the proceedings, or on July 9, 2001, Judg

olores L. Espaol, petitioner, issued an Order stating th

enito See and Marly See, president and treasure

spectively, of Sharcons, and its counsel, Atty. Benjamormoso, respondents, have used a spurious certificate

le and tax declaration when it (Sharcons) filed with thTC its complaint for quieting of title. Consequent


4/21

etitioner declared respondents guilty of direct contem

court and ordered their confinement for ten (10) days

e municipal jail of Dasmarias, Cavite.

etitioners Order is partly reproduced as follows:

From the foregoing circumstances, this

Court is of the view and so holds that

the instant case is a callous and blatant

imposition of lies, falsehoods,

deceptions, and fraudulent

manipulations, through the extensiveuse of falsified documents by the

plaintiff corporation and its former

counsel, Atty. Benjamin S. Formoso,

defendant Evanswinda C. Morales and

even the Geodetic Engineer whoconnived with this private group on one

hand, and some officials and employeesof the government agencies responsible

for the processing and issuance of

spurious or falsified titles, on the other.Unless these fraudulent operations are

put to a complete and drastic halt, the

Courts are at the mercy of these

unscrupulous people for their own

personal gain.


5/21

Using the presumption that whoever is

in possession and user of falsified

document is the forger thereof (Gamido

v. Court of Appeals, 25 SCRA 101[1995]), let the appropriate falsification

charges be filed against Benito See andMarly See together with Evanswinda C.

Morales. Thus, let a copy of this Order

be forwarded to the National Bureau of

Investigation and the Department of

Justice for their appropriate action. Asregards Atty. Benjamin S. Formoso, let a

copy of this Order be forwarded to the

Bar Confidants Office, Supreme

Court. Manila.

Further, Benito See and Marly See,

President and Treasurer of Sharcons

Builders Phils. Inc., respectively, and

Atty. Benjamin S. Formoso, counsel forSharcons until March 13, 2001, are

declared and held in contempt forfoisting falsehoods and using falsified

and spurious documents in the pursuit

of their nefarious activities pursuant to

the instant case filed before this Court.Let the corresponding Warrants of


6/21

Arrest be issued against the aforesaid

respondents who should serve ten (10)

days of detention at the Dasmarias

Municipal Jail, Cavite.

Likewise, the title issued to Sharcons

Builders Philippines, Inc., under TCT No.

T-511462 allegedly issued on November11, 1994, being spurious, is hereby

cancelled, it having been derived from

another spurious title with TCT No. T-

278479 allegedly issued to Evanswinda

C. Morales on December 29, 1989. The

Declaration of Real Property No. 4736 is

likewise hereby cancelled for beingspurious. Let a copy of this Order be

forwarded to the Registry of Deeds for

its implementation with respect to the

two (2) titles for cancellation and to the

Assessors Office ofthe Municipality of Dasmarias, Cavite, to

stave off the proliferation of these

spurious instruments.


7/21

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,

the instant case is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE, whereas, the private

defendants counterclaims, which needfurther substantiation, are likewise

dismissed. However, the said privatedefendants are not precluded from

pursuing their rightful course(s) of

action in the interest of justice.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner stated that in determining the merits

harcons' complaint for quieting of title, she stumble

pon Civil Case No. 623-92 for cancellation of title anamages filed with the RTC, Branch 20, Imus, Cavit

esided by then Judge Lucenito N. Tagle.[2] Petitioner the

ok judicial notice of the judges Decision declaring th

harcons' TCT and other supporting documents a

lsified and that respondents are responsible therefor.

n July 12, 2001, petitioner issued warrants of arre

ainst respondents. They were confined in the municip

il of Dasmarias, Cavite. That same day, respondents filed

otion for bail and a motion to lift the order of arrest. B

ey were denied outright by petitioner.



8/21

espondents then filed with the Court of Appeals a petitio

r a writ of habeas corpus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP N

5652. On July 19, 2001, the Court of Appeals granted th

etition.

n September 12, 2001, the Court of Appeals promulgate

s Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING,

finding the instant petition to be

meritorious, the same is hereby

GRANTED. Respondent judges July 9,

2001 Order, insofar as it declared herein

petitioners in direct contempt andordered their incarceration for ten (10)

days, as well as the Warrant of Arrest,

dated July 12, 2001, and the Order of

Commitment, dated July 13, 2001, which

the respondent judge issued against thepersons of the herein petitioners, are

hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.


9/21

he Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Espaol erred

king cognizance of the Decision rendered by then Judg

agle in Civil Case No. 623-92 since it was not offered

vidence in Civil Case No. 2035-00 for quieting

le. Moreover, as the direct contempt of court is crimin

nature, petitioner should have conductedearing. Thus, she could have determined wheth

spondents are guilty as charged.

etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the Cou

Appeals denied the same in its Resolution of Novemb5, 2001.

ence, this petition.

he basic question before us is whether petitioner erred

ling that respondents are guilty of direct contempt urt for using falsified documents when Sharcons filed i

mplaint for quieting of title.

he early case of In re Jones[3] defined contempt of court a

me act or conduct which tends to interfere with th

usiness of the court, by a refusal to obey some lawf

der of the court, or some act of disrespect to the digni

the court which in some way tends to interfere with o

amper the orderly proceedings of the court and thu

ssens the general efficiency of the same.It has also bee

escribed as a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity e court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority an



10/21

dministration of the law into disrespect or to interfe

ith or prejudice parties litigants or their witnesses durin

igation.[4] Simply put, it is despising of the authorit

stice, or dignity of the court .[5]

he offense of contempt traces its origin to that timEngland when all courts in the realm were but division

the Curia Regia, the supreme court of the monarch, an

scandalize a court was an affront to the sovereign.[6] Th

ncept was adopted by the Americans and brought to ou

ores with modifications. In this jurisdiction, it is nocognized that courts have the inherent power

unish for contempt on the ground that respect for th

ourts guarantees the very stability of the judicistitution.[7] Such stability is essential to the preservatio

order in judicial proceedings, to the enforcement

dgments, orders, and mandates of the courts, annsequently, to the very administration of justice.[8]

ule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amende

ovides:

SEC. 1. Direct contempt punished

summarily. A person guilty of

misbehavior in the presence of or so

near a court as to obstruct or interrupt

the proceedings before the same,including disrespect toward the court,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn5


11/21

offensive personalities toward others, or

refusal to be sworn or to answer as a

witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or

deposition when lawfully required to do

so, may be summarily adjudged incontempt by such court and punished

by a fine not exceeding two thousand

pesos or imprisonment not exceeding

ten (10) days, or both, if it be a Regional

Trial Court or a court of equivalent orhigher rank, or by a fine not exceeding

two hundred pesos or imprisonment,

not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it

be a lower court.

In Narcida v. Bowen,[9] this Court characterize

rect contempt as one done in the presence of or so ne

e court or judge as to obstruct the administration

stice. It is a contumacious act done facie curiae and m

e punished summarily without hearing.[10] In other wordne may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt at th

ry moment or at the very instance of the commission

e act of contumely.

Section 3, Rule 71 of the same Rules states:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn10


12/21

SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished

after charge and hearing. After a charge

in writing has been filed and an

opportunity given to the respondent to

comment thereon within such period asmay be fixed by the court and to be

heard by himself or by counsel, a person

guilty of any of the following acts may

be punished for indirect contempt:

(a) Misbehavior of an officer of

court in the performance of his

official duties or in his official

transactions;

(b) Disobedience of or resistance

to a lawful writ, process, order,

or judgment of a court,

including the act of a person

who, after being dispossessed

or ejected from any real

property by the judgment or

process of any court of

competent jurisdiction, enters

or attempts or induces another


13/21

to enter into or upon such real

property, for the purpose of

executing acts of ownership or

possession, or in any manner

disturbs the possession givento the person adjudged to be

entitled thereto;

(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful

interference with theprocesses or proceedings of a

court not constituting direct

contempt under Section 1 of

this Rule;

(d) Any improper conduct

tending, directly or indirectly,

to impede, obstruct, or degrade

the administration of justice;

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or

an officer of a court and acting

as such without authority;

(f) Failure to obey a subpoenaduly served;


14/21

(g) The rescue, or attempted

rescue, of a person or property

in the custody of an officer by

virtue of an order or process of

a court held by him.

But nothing in this section shall

be so construed as to prevent the

court from issuing process to bring

the respondent into court, or fromholding him in custody pending such

proceedings.

direct or constructive contempt, in turn, is on

erpetrated outside of the sitting of the court and mclude misbehavior of an officer of a court in th

erformance of his official duties or in his offici

ansactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful wr

ocess, order, judgment, or command of a court,

junction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or an

nlawful interference with the process or proceedings of

urt not constituting direct contempt, or any improp

nduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstru

degrade the administration of justice.[11]

e agree with petitioner that the use of falsified and forgeocuments is a contumacious act.However, it constitut



15/21

direct contempt not direct contempt. Pursuant to th

bove provision, such act is an improper conduct whic

egrades the administration of justice. In Santos v. Court

rst Instance of Cebu, Branch V I ,[12] we ruled that th

mputed use of a falsified document, more so where th

lsity of the document is not apparent on its face, mereonstitutes indirect contempt , and as such is subject

ch defenses as the accused may raise in the propoceedings. Thus, following Section 3, Ru

1, a contemner may be punished only after a charge

riting has been filed, and an opportunity has been givethe accused to be heard by himself an

unsel.[13] Moreover, settled is the rule that a contem

oceeding is not a civil action, but a separate proceedin

a criminal nature in which the court exercises limite

risdiction.[14] Thus, the modes of procedure and the rul

evidence in contempt proceedings are assimilated as f

practicable to those adapted to crimin

osecutions.[15]Perforce, petitioner judge erred

eclaring summarily that respondents are guilty of dire

ntempt and ordering their incarceration. She shou

ave conducted a hearing with notice to respondents.

etitioner, in convicting respondents for direct contempt

urt, took judicial notice of the Decision in Civil Case N

23-92, assigned to another RTC branch, presided by the

dge Tagle. Section 1, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules

ourt provides:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftn13


16/21

SEC. 1. Judicial notice, when

mandatory. A court shall take judicial

notice, without the introduction of

evidence, of the existence and territorial

extent of states, their political history,forms of government, and symbols of

nationality, the law of nations, the

admiralty and maritime courts of the

world and their seals, the political

constitution and history of thePhilippines, the official acts of

the legislative, executive and judicial

departments of the Philippines, the

laws of nature, the measure of time, and

the geographical divisions.

In Gener v. De Leon ,[16] we held that courts are n

uthorized to take judicial notice of the contents of record

other cases even when such cases have been tried o

ending in the same court. Hence, we reiterate thetitioner took judicial notice of the Decision rendered b

nother RTC branch and on the basis thereof, conclude

at respondents used falsified documents (such as lan

le and tax declaration) when Sharcons filed its complai

r quieting. Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err



17/21

ling that respondents are not guilty of direct contempt

urt.

Meanwhile, the instant petition challenging th

ecision of the Court of Appeals granting the writ of habe

rpus in favor of respondents has become moot. We recaat respondents were released after posting the require

ail as ordered by the Court of Appeals. A writ of habe

rpus will not lie on behalf of a person who is not actual

strained of his liberty. And a person discharged on bail

ot restrained of his liberty as to be entitled to a wrhabeas corpus.[17]

HEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The challenge

ecision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.

P No. 65652 are AFFIRMED. No costs.

O ORDERED.

NGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ

ssociate Justice



18/21

E CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

Chairperson

RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Associate Justice


19/21

CANCIO C. GARCIA

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of th

onstitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions

e above Decision were reached in consultation before th

se was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courvision.

REYNATO S. PUNO


20/21

Chief Justice

etired.

Rollo, pp. 26-35. Penned by Associate Justice Candido V. Rivera (retired) aconcurred in by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (nowmember of this Court) and Associate Justice Juan Q. Fuentes, Jr.

Now Justice of the Court of Appeals.

9 Phil. 347 (1907).

Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138660, Febru

5, 2004, 422 SCRA 101, 114, citingHalili v. CIR, 220 Phil. 507 (1985).

Villavencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 809 (1919).

Re Caruba, 139 NJ Eq 404, 51 A2d 446, affd 140 NJ Eq 563, 55 A2d 289.

Mercado v. Security Bank Corp ., G.R. No. 160445, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 5018.

n re Kelly , 35 Phil. 944, 950 (1916).

22 Phil. 365 (1912).

Medina v. Rivera, 66 Phil. 155, 156 (1938); Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., GNo. 162704, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 572, 574.

Patricio v. Suplico , G.R. No. 76562, April 22, 1991, 196 SCRA 140, 146.

G.R. Nos. 57190-91, 58532, May 18, 1990, 185 SCRA 472.

Ruiz v. How , A.M. No. RTJ-03-1805, October 14, 2003, 413 SCRA 333, 3

citing Wicker v. Arcangel, 242 SCRA 444 (1996).

In re Mison, Jr. v. Subido , G.R. No. 27704, May 28, 1970, 33 SCRA 30, 33.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/150949.htm#_ftnref9


21/21

Lee Yick Hon v. Collector of Customs, 41 Phil. 548, 552 (1921).G.R. No. 130730, October 19, 2001, 367 SCRA 631, citing People v. Hernandez , 2

SCRA 25 (1996); US v. Ckaveria, 29 Phil. 527 (1915).

Tan Me Nio v. Collector of Customs, 34 Phil. 944, 947 (1916).

3. espanol vs formoso

Documents